screenshot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'capture a screenshot', omitting key details like whether the operation is read-only, impact on the target, output format (image binary), rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single-sentence description is concise but overly simplistic for a tool with 16 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail. Every sentence should earn its place; here, one sentence is insufficient, making the description too brief for the complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high parameter count (16), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values (e.g., image bytes, error handling), default behaviors (e.g., fullPage defaults to false, blockAds true), or practical constraints. An agent lacks critical info for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 63%, and the description adds no additional meaning to parameters. Baseline is 3 because the schema already describes many parameters, but the description fails to clarify nuanced defaults or usage contexts, especially for complex parameters like proxyCountry or skipCaptcha.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'capture' and the resource 'screenshot of a website', making the primary action and target obvious. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like url2Pdf or lighthouse, which also capture visual representations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 19 sibling tools, explicit contexts or exclusions would help an agent choose correctly. The description implies general use but lacks any comparative decision cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.